7 ms·

A bit of your meaning is unclear, so I want to add something: If you are part of the half of Americans who voted for either of the two ruling parties, you vote

by scarmig 12y ago

A bit of your meaning is unclear, so I want to add something: If you are part of the half of Americans who voted for either of the two ruling parties, you voted for torture. The only people who haven't are those who don't vote, or who vote for (certain) third parties.

fargolime 12y ago
Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.
- donall 12y ago
  [Citation needed]
  - fargolime 12y ago
    Citation won't be given. Downvote instead (it's a throwaway).
    - zo1 12y ago
      So you call people out on hiding behind their votes, and that we should alienate those that cast their votes we disagree with. ...and then you admit you're using a throwaway account here. Ironically, you're hiding behind your throwaway account instead of posting it under your real account/persona. Precisely because you are afraid that people will do what you told them is the best way to fix this problem of government we're discussing, and alienate/shun you for your views..
      - fargolime 12y ago
        Ah, but my choice is for good, not evil, and harms no one. Sorry, but you'll not find a hole in my logic regarding ethics; it's flawless.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  Voting for a third party sends a message to the two actual parties that they could get your vote if they took <distinguishing position of your third party>. Obviously, an single vote for a third party will not make a difference, but a single vote for a main party won't make a difference anyway. However, if a third party gets even 1% of the votes, then the two main parties would notice that and think about what they can do to win that 1% of the voting population.
  - fargolime 12y ago
    Liberal Nader voters in 2000 were partly responsible for Bush getting elected, because they could have prevented it. Absent instant run-off voting or some other way that a third party can be viable, voting for a third party simply wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. It sends no viable message. The 2 main parties will give it no weight whatsoever, as they have total control.
    - donall 12y ago
      This is the second time you've categorised it as choosing "the lesser evil". I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. If I vote for the losing party, I implicitly agree to abide by the choices made by the winning party because I would expect the same from their supporters if the roles were reversed. None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests. To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity.
      - kefka 12y ago
        > I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. I think it would require some proof to what design you are referring to.
      - 12y ago
- einhverfr 12y ago
  Discussing politics with people on the other side of the isle and finding common ground is frankly more important than voting today.
  - fargolime 12y ago
    One can do both, although making a worse choice at the polls usually goes hand-in-hand with a closed mind, in my experience.
    - einhverfr 12y ago
      My point is: the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either. The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home. The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).
sd8f9iu 12y ago
So I should support a third party that will get no representation in the government and have no impact? We live in a two-party system whether you like it or not, and it's not changing anytime soon. I quickly grow weary of the constant anti-establishment chant on HN to "vote out all the incumbents" (not going to happen) and support an independent candidate (not going to get elected). How about I vote for the one of the two major parties that didn't opt for the useless wars that spurned this and didn't authorize torture in the first place? I know Obama hasn't prosecuted Bush, Cheney, and the other torture enablers (it's political suicide in case you didn't know), but at least he didn't let it happen under his watch.
- dethstar 12y ago
  There's a lot of horrible things happening "under his watch" e.g http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program... When the parties change and there's some more files revealed and what not, you'll be part of the people who voted for the party that did opt for X.
- scarmig 12y ago
  Either way, your vote is thrown away. Even if you live in a perennial swing state like Ohio, you're vanishingly unlikely to swing the election to the party that beats you with a velvet glove instead of iron knuckles. And if you don't live in one of those states, it's... even more vanishingly unlikely. The issue with voting isn't that it influences the government one way or another: it doesn't, and pretty much any of us can get more influence by working all those hours we would otherwise think about politics and using that money to purchase connections with actual power brokers (though even that is mostly a waste). The real issue with it is its influence on your identity. Electoral politics is a twisted parody of real politics, morphing autonomous values and communal choices into something closer to the emotions felt when watching team sports. My guy good, your guy good. Which isn't bad, in itself--it's a form of entertainment like any other. But it's not real politics. My suggestion would be to skip voting for all federal offices and maybe even state offices, and focus on the local, if you must do electoral politics.
- Sorgam 12y ago

by scarmig 12y ago

fargolime 12y ago

Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.

donall 12y ago
[Citation needed]
- fargolime 12y ago
  Citation won't be given. Downvote instead (it's a throwaway).
  - zo1 12y ago
    So you call people out on hiding behind their votes, and that we should alienate those that cast their votes we disagree with. ...and then you admit you're using a throwaway account here. Ironically, you're hiding behind your throwaway account instead of posting it under your real account/persona. Precisely because you are afraid that people will do what you told them is the best way to fix this problem of government we're discussing, and alienate/shun you for your views..
    - fargolime 12y ago
      Ah, but my choice is for good, not evil, and harms no one. Sorry, but you'll not find a hole in my logic regarding ethics; it's flawless.
gizmo686 12y ago
Voting for a third party sends a message to the two actual parties that they could get your vote if they took <distinguishing position of your third party>. Obviously, an single vote for a third party will not make a difference, but a single vote for a main party won't make a difference anyway. However, if a third party gets even 1% of the votes, then the two main parties would notice that and think about what they can do to win that 1% of the voting population.
- fargolime 12y ago
  Liberal Nader voters in 2000 were partly responsible for Bush getting elected, because they could have prevented it. Absent instant run-off voting or some other way that a third party can be viable, voting for a third party simply wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. It sends no viable message. The 2 main parties will give it no weight whatsoever, as they have total control.
  - donall 12y ago
    This is the second time you've categorised it as choosing "the lesser evil". I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. If I vote for the losing party, I implicitly agree to abide by the choices made by the winning party because I would expect the same from their supporters if the roles were reversed. None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests. To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity.
    - kefka 12y ago
      > I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. I think it would require some proof to what design you are referring to.
    - 12y ago
einhverfr 12y ago
Discussing politics with people on the other side of the isle and finding common ground is frankly more important than voting today.
- fargolime 12y ago
  One can do both, although making a worse choice at the polls usually goes hand-in-hand with a closed mind, in my experience.
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    My point is: the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either. The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home. The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).

sd8f9iu 12y ago

So I should support a third party that will get no representation in the government and have no impact? We live in a two-party system whether you like it or not, and it's not changing anytime soon. I quickly grow weary of the constant anti-establishment chant on HN to "vote out all the incumbents" (not going to happen) and support an independent candidate (not going to get elected). How about I vote for the one of the two major parties that didn't opt for the useless wars that spurned this and didn't authorize torture in the first place? I know Obama hasn't prosecuted Bush, Cheney, and the other torture enablers (it's political suicide in case you didn't know), but at least he didn't let it happen under his watch.

dethstar 12y ago
There's a lot of horrible things happening "under his watch" e.g http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program... When the parties change and there's some more files revealed and what not, you'll be part of the people who voted for the party that did opt for X.
scarmig 12y ago
Either way, your vote is thrown away. Even if you live in a perennial swing state like Ohio, you're vanishingly unlikely to swing the election to the party that beats you with a velvet glove instead of iron knuckles. And if you don't live in one of those states, it's... even more vanishingly unlikely. The issue with voting isn't that it influences the government one way or another: it doesn't, and pretty much any of us can get more influence by working all those hours we would otherwise think about politics and using that money to purchase connections with actual power brokers (though even that is mostly a waste). The real issue with it is its influence on your identity. Electoral politics is a twisted parody of real politics, morphing autonomous values and communal choices into something closer to the emotions felt when watching team sports. My guy good, your guy good. Which isn't bad, in itself--it's a form of entertainment like any other. But it's not real politics. My suggestion would be to skip voting for all federal offices and maybe even state offices, and focus on the local, if you must do electoral politics.
Sorgam 12y ago